Bypassing Masters Titles

[Moxie]

Some players with only one mandatory event just happen to win a slam, some others only a Masters.

In recent years, DelPo and Stan won a slam but not a Masters. On the other hand, Ferrer, Tsonga, Söderling, Berdych, Ljubicic won a Masters.

There are 4 slams and 9 Masters. I think 2 GS champs and 5 M1000 champs follow that ratio quite well.

Interestingly, among the five "one master wonders", 4 of them won the Paris indoor
ATP 1000. If I remember right Ljubicic won the IW once playing against Roddick I think.

Henman and Rusedski were also "one master wonders". Both won in Paris.

Proving once again that Paris is the graveyard of the MS year, and why Paris wants to move it. Also, Ferrer's only one. And if you need further proof, it took Roger until 2011 to win there, the master of indoor HCs.

 

[Moxie]

Where did you get the impression that Rafa cares a 'whole lot' more abour slams than masters? Based on what I have seen him foing last year, it did not look like it.

I would say that if you gave any player a choice, they'd care a "whole lot more" about a slam win than a few MS titles, let alone even one.

As for the OP, these things happen opportunely sometimes. Players get in position, have the event of their life, and if things fall sweetly for them, they'll take it.

Could be a slam, or an MS title: just so happens that lately it's (very rarely) slams. Other guys have won MS titles and not won slams...

Geez, you know I am expecting you to asses more realistically your boy's intentions. Whenever he enters an event, he does not only waits for things to fall into place for him and then says "Gracias" I will take it.
He fights equally hard whenever and wherever he plays. Period. That makes him such an outstanding champion. Always 100%. Wake me up when he wil do otherwise.

Yes, but I think what Front and Kieran have said are valid. Federer and Nadal are pretty much at the point where they only have to care about Majors. Djokovic would probably happy to win Cincy, to complete the circuit, and rack up a few more 1000s in the count. However, when any of them find themselves in the last Sunday, they had bloody better win, or what's the point? I think that's where Rafa was in Canada and Cincy last summer. He was almost the "accidental winner." I think he would have been willing to do either as a tune-up. I'll be surprised if he pushes hard to defend both next summer. The focus will be the USO again.

Moxie, what I had a problem with in Front's statement was the verb he used. He said "cares", which is completely different than "should care", which I would have been in agreement with.
Of course. slams are more important than masters, for every player, but how much more, that is again an assumption to say "a whole lot more".

Perhaps the distinction we're all making is what MS matter and when, to the top guys. Of course they all care, but sometimes they can be tune-ups to a Major, and sometimes they need to be won, just to tell-off the locker room. For example, if Rafa and Nole are going to make a pissing-contest out of the clay season, and I expect they will, then those MS matter to them. And Nadal has points to defend. Do IW and Miami matter as much? I doubt it. Pick up points, don't lose too many, move on.

I don't think it's unfair to say these top guys care "a whole lot" more about Slams. They're playing for history, now. Beyond getting one over the other guy in a MS as money-in-the-bank, they'd rather lose it, and win the subsequent Slam. I think that's just true. That's why I said that Rafa was essentially an "accidental winner" in Canada and Cincy last summer. I don't think he felt he had to win them, just that he had to beat Novak in Canada and Roger in Cincinnati. By doing both, he eventually won each tournament. Beating them is what won him the USO, not winning Rogers Cup or Cincy, if you take my meaning. The MS titles were a bonus.

 

[calitennis127]

Since the beginning of 2004, there have been four Grand Slam Winners outside of
Big 4.

1. Gaston Gudio 2004 FO
2. Marat Safin 2005 AO
3. JMDP 2009 USO
4. Stan 2012 AO

The interesting thing is that except for Marat Safin the others have not won a
Masters (or equivalently ATP 1000) title. It looks like people are bypassing it to
win Grand Slams.

What could be the reason for it? Even though they are only three set matches,
in a ATP 1000 event, players do not get a day of rest in between. Is that what is
making the difference? Any thoughts.

Of course, Gaston has retired. The other two have still a chance of winning a
Masters title.

This is in complete contrast to, say for example Andy Murray, who won several
Masters title before picking up a GS.

I don't understand...

Most of the Masters 1000 events in the past few years have been won by the big 4, so they're not exactly getting bypassed.

Unless you mean why is it that 3 of the above players were able to win slams but not masters events. Gaudio was a fluke -- a one slam wonder. He was never that good and happened to catch fire in one tournament, which, luckily for him, was a slam.

Del Potro has come close to winning Masters 1000 events twice last year (IW and Shanghai). Wawrinka's reached a final too (Madrid). I'd say it's just a matter of circumstances. I don't think they willingly bypassed Masters. Wawrinka only really played at a really great level of tennis since last year anyway. Before that, he wasn't good enough to win big tournaments. It is somewhat odd that Del Potro has yet to win a Masters event but again, it's a matter of circumstances: DP peaked in summer of 2009. He almost won the Montreal Masters that year, then went on to win the US Open. Unfortunately, the injury he sustained after that has really affected his entire career, and he hasn't been as good since. Hence the lack of titles.

It has been a lot more than injuries that has caused the lack of titles for Del Potro since 2009.

Also, I don't see why he was any better in 2009 than 2013. If he had closed the deal on Nadal in the second set of the IW final, wouldn't you be saying that this was a "peak moment" in his career, by virtue of him simply winning the event?

Likewise for the semifinal against Djokovic at Wimbledon or the final against Djokovic in Shanghai.

His level in 2013 was usually very high. But Delpo's problems in closing the deal have to do far more with his sluggish and mopey on-court attitude than a wrist injury, as bothersome as it certainly was at times for him.

 

[calitennis127]

Since the beginning of 2004, there have been four Grand Slam Winners outside of
Big 4.

1. Gaston Gudio 2004 FO
2. Marat Safin 2005 AO
3. JMDP 2009 USO
4. Stan 2012 AO

The interesting thing is that except for Marat Safin the others have not won a
Masters (or equivalently ATP 1000) title. It looks like people are bypassing it to
win Grand Slams.

What could be the reason for it? Even though they are only three set matches,
in a ATP 1000 event, players do not get a day of rest in between. Is that what is
making the difference? Any thoughts.

Of course, Gaston has retired. The other two have still a chance of winning a
Masters title.

This is in complete contrast to, say for example Andy Murray, who won several
Masters title before picking up a GS.

I really don't think there is much to read in to here. Three players over the course of 10 long seasons is hardly a trend.

Gaudio won the French at a time when the tournament was wide open. Delpo has been constantly knocking at the door at the big events, so him winning one shouldn't be some sort of puzzling occasion. And Wawrinka - it is no secret - is quite potent as a shotmaker and he played Djokovic very close in 5-setters at both of the 2013 hard court Slams. He finally broke through in 2014. And then he simply dominated Nadal in the first set, which is quite natural to any great shotmaker on a hard court playing at a high level, before lucking out that Nadal got hurt in the second set.

 

[Moxie]

I don't understand...

Most of the Masters 1000 events in the past few years have been won by the big 4, so they're not exactly getting bypassed.

Unless you mean why is it that 3 of the above players were able to win slams but not masters events. Gaudio was a fluke -- a one slam wonder. He was never that good and happened to catch fire in one tournament, which, luckily for him, was a slam.

Del Potro has come close to winning Masters 1000 events twice last year (IW and Shanghai). Wawrinka's reached a final too (Madrid). I'd say it's just a matter of circumstances. I don't think they willingly bypassed Masters. Wawrinka only really played at a really great level of tennis since last year anyway. Before that, he wasn't good enough to win big tournaments. It is somewhat odd that Del Potro has yet to win a Masters event but again, it's a matter of circumstances: DP peaked in summer of 2009. He almost won the Montreal Masters that year, then went on to win the US Open. Unfortunately, the injury he sustained after that has really affected his entire career, and he hasn't been as good since. Hence the lack of titles.

It has been a lot more than injuries that has caused the lack of titles for Del Potro since 2009.

Also, I don't see why he was any better in 2009 than 2013. If he had closed the deal on Nadal in the second set of the IW final, wouldn't you be saying that this was a "peak moment" in his career, by virtue of him simply winning the event?

Likewise for the semifinal against Djokovic at Wimbledon or the final against Djokovic in Shanghai.

His level in 2013 was usually very high. But Delpo's problems in closing the deal have to do far more with his sluggish and mopey on-court attitude than a wrist injury, as bothersome as it certainly was at times for him.

I agree that Del Potro looked like he was getting back on-form in 2013, and things might have gone differently for him had he closed the deal on those matches you cite.  I have a slight difference of opinion with you as to why.  I'm not the only one here who thinks that Juan Martín's lack of confidence in his wrist has taken some of the sting off of his forehand.  And I'm not sure if "sluggish and mopey on-court attitude" is technically a tennis problem.  His demeanor is what it is.  (He's always looked like a gigantic sloth to me, by which I mean the animal.)  I'd go back to belief and confidence, and I do think the source is the injury history.  

 

[brokenshoelace]

Since the beginning of 2004, there have been four Grand Slam Winners outside of
Big 4.

1. Gaston Gudio 2004 FO
2. Marat Safin 2005 AO
3. JMDP 2009 USO
4. Stan 2012 AO

The interesting thing is that except for Marat Safin the others have not won a
Masters (or equivalently ATP 1000) title. It looks like people are bypassing it to
win Grand Slams.

What could be the reason for it? Even though they are only three set matches,
in a ATP 1000 event, players do not get a day of rest in between. Is that what is
making the difference? Any thoughts.

Of course, Gaston has retired. The other two have still a chance of winning a
Masters title.

This is in complete contrast to, say for example Andy Murray, who won several
Masters title before picking up a GS.

I don't understand...

Most of the Masters 1000 events in the past few years have been won by the big 4, so they're not exactly getting bypassed.

Unless you mean why is it that 3 of the above players were able to win slams but not masters events. Gaudio was a fluke -- a one slam wonder. He was never that good and happened to catch fire in one tournament, which, luckily for him, was a slam.

Del Potro has come close to winning Masters 1000 events twice last year (IW and Shanghai). Wawrinka's reached a final too (Madrid). I'd say it's just a matter of circumstances. I don't think they willingly bypassed Masters. Wawrinka only really played at a really great level of tennis since last year anyway. Before that, he wasn't good enough to win big tournaments. It is somewhat odd that Del Potro has yet to win a Masters event but again, it's a matter of circumstances: DP peaked in summer of 2009. He almost won the Montreal Masters that year, then went on to win the US Open. Unfortunately, the injury he sustained after that has really affected his entire career, and he hasn't been as good since. Hence the lack of titles.

It has been a lot more than injuries that has caused the lack of titles for Del Potro since 2009.

Also, I don't see why he was any better in 2009 than 2013. If he had closed the deal on Nadal in the second set of the IW final, wouldn't you be saying that this was a "peak moment" in his career, by virtue of him simply winning the event?

Likewise for the semifinal against Djokovic at Wimbledon or the final against Djokovic in Shanghai.

His level in 2013 was usually very high. But Delpo's problems in closing the deal have to do far more with his sluggish and mopey on-court attitude than a wrist injury, as bothersome as it certainly was at times for him.

A peak moment is not decided by 1 week. So no, even if Del Potro had closed out Nadal at IW, it wouldn't have been his peak moment. Not to mention, he DIDN'T close him out, so that says something.

Del Potro was playing great for 4-5 months in a row in 2009, and he was actually hitting the ball consistently bigger on a rally to rally basis. His backhand was significantly better as was his serve. It's more than just some "mopey on-court attitude."

I'm sure you'll bring up some matches from last year where he played great, and yes, he did (Nadal in Shanghai, Djokovic at Wimbledon, etc...). But these are just a few matches. He should be capable of more.

 

[calitennis127]

I don't understand...

Most of the Masters 1000 events in the past few years have been won by the big 4, so they're not exactly getting bypassed.

Unless you mean why is it that 3 of the above players were able to win slams but not masters events. Gaudio was a fluke -- a one slam wonder. He was never that good and happened to catch fire in one tournament, which, luckily for him, was a slam.

Del Potro has come close to winning Masters 1000 events twice last year (IW and Shanghai). Wawrinka's reached a final too (Madrid). I'd say it's just a matter of circumstances. I don't think they willingly bypassed Masters. Wawrinka only really played at a really great level of tennis since last year anyway. Before that, he wasn't good enough to win big tournaments. It is somewhat odd that Del Potro has yet to win a Masters event but again, it's a matter of circumstances: DP peaked in summer of 2009. He almost won the Montreal Masters that year, then went on to win the US Open. Unfortunately, the injury he sustained after that has really affected his entire career, and he hasn't been as good since. Hence the lack of titles.

It has been a lot more than injuries that has caused the lack of titles for Del Potro since 2009.

Also, I don't see why he was any better in 2009 than 2013. If he had closed the deal on Nadal in the second set of the IW final, wouldn't you be saying that this was a "peak moment" in his career, by virtue of him simply winning the event?

Likewise for the semifinal against Djokovic at Wimbledon or the final against Djokovic in Shanghai.

His level in 2013 was usually very high. But Delpo's problems in closing the deal have to do far more with his sluggish and mopey on-court attitude than a wrist injury, as bothersome as it certainly was at times for him.

I agree that Del Potro looked like he was getting back on-form in 2013, and things might have gone differently for him had he closed the deal on those matches you cite.  I have a slight difference of opinion with you as to why.  I'm not the only one here who thinks that Juan Martín's lack of confidence in his wrist has taken some of the sting off of his forehand.  And I'm not sure if "sluggish and mopey on-court attitude" is technically a tennis problem.  His demeanor is what it is.  (He's always looked like a gigantic sloth to me, by which I mean the animal.)  I'd go back to belief and confidence, and I do think the source is the injury history.  

Each of the Big 4, in their own way, is very assertive and fast-paced in how they approach matches. They walk fast between points. They are decisive. They look like they are after something. They look like they are on a business mission with serious profits available to them if they are sharp and complete the task at hand.

Del Potro - for all his talent - does not share this psychology. He wants to win, of course. And he is persistent. But his mopey, sluggish, and yes, slothful, attitude inevitably results in sloppiness in his play against average opponents and puts him at a serious disadvantage against the Top 4. The Wimbledon semifinal was case and point. Delpo was making some terrific shots but he acted like he was facing an invincible Hercules, and fittingly, he succumbed to the invincible Hercules his attitude turned Djokovic into.

 

[Moxie]

I don't understand...

Most of the Masters 1000 events in the past few years have been won by the big 4, so they're not exactly getting bypassed.

Unless you mean why is it that 3 of the above players were able to win slams but not masters events. Gaudio was a fluke -- a one slam wonder. He was never that good and happened to catch fire in one tournament, which, luckily for him, was a slam.

Del Potro has come close to winning Masters 1000 events twice last year (IW and Shanghai). Wawrinka's reached a final too (Madrid). I'd say it's just a matter of circumstances. I don't think they willingly bypassed Masters. Wawrinka only really played at a really great level of tennis since last year anyway. Before that, he wasn't good enough to win big tournaments. It is somewhat odd that Del Potro has yet to win a Masters event but again, it's a matter of circumstances: DP peaked in summer of 2009. He almost won the Montreal Masters that year, then went on to win the US Open. Unfortunately, the injury he sustained after that has really affected his entire career, and he hasn't been as good since. Hence the lack of titles.

It has been a lot more than injuries that has caused the lack of titles for Del Potro since 2009.

Also, I don't see why he was any better in 2009 than 2013. If he had closed the deal on Nadal in the second set of the IW final, wouldn't you be saying that this was a "peak moment" in his career, by virtue of him simply winning the event?

Likewise for the semifinal against Djokovic at Wimbledon or the final against Djokovic in Shanghai.

His level in 2013 was usually very high. But Delpo's problems in closing the deal have to do far more with his sluggish and mopey on-court attitude than a wrist injury, as bothersome as it certainly was at times for him.

I agree that Del Potro looked like he was getting back on-form in 2013, and things might have gone differently for him had he closed the deal on those matches you cite.  I have a slight difference of opinion with you as to why.  I'm not the only one here who thinks that Juan Martín's lack of confidence in his wrist has taken some of the sting off of his forehand.  And I'm not sure if "sluggish and mopey on-court attitude" is technically a tennis problem.  His demeanor is what it is.  (He's always looked like a gigantic sloth to me, by which I mean the animal.)  I'd go back to belief and confidence, and I do think the source is the injury history.  

Each of the Big 4, in their own way, is very assertive and fast-paced in how they approach matches. They walk fast between points. They are decisive. They look like they are after something. They look like they are on a business mission with serious profits available to them if they are sharp and complete the task at hand.

Del Potro - for all his talent - does not share this psychology. He wants to win, of course. And he is persistent. But his mopey, sluggish, and yes, slothful, attitude inevitably results in sloppiness in his play against average opponents and puts him at a serious disadvantage against the Top 4. The Wimbledon semifinal was case and point. Delpo was making some terrific shots but he acted like he was facing an invincible Hercules, and fittingly, he succumbed to the invincible Hercules his attitude turned Djokovic into.

Just before someone else jumps in with an enormous guffaw, let me say that there are plenty who would argue about Nadal and Djokovic being "fast-paced." Assertive, for sure, I'll give you that caveat. TBH, I'm not sure what goes on with Del Potro. I'm not sure if it's fitness, wrist, attitude, confidence, combination of all….

Maybe he won the USOpen before he knew enough to be intimidated. And here I agree with you: since then, he has seemed to lack the killer- or closer's-instinct.

 

[Moxie]

I hate to say it but:

He does look like a sloth.

 

[calitennis127]

I don't understand...

Most of the Masters 1000 events in the past few years have been won by the big 4, so they're not exactly getting bypassed.

Unless you mean why is it that 3 of the above players were able to win slams but not masters events. Gaudio was a fluke -- a one slam wonder. He was never that good and happened to catch fire in one tournament, which, luckily for him, was a slam.

Del Potro has come close to winning Masters 1000 events twice last year (IW and Shanghai). Wawrinka's reached a final too (Madrid). I'd say it's just a matter of circumstances. I don't think they willingly bypassed Masters. Wawrinka only really played at a really great level of tennis since last year anyway. Before that, he wasn't good enough to win big tournaments. It is somewhat odd that Del Potro has yet to win a Masters event but again, it's a matter of circumstances: DP peaked in summer of 2009. He almost won the Montreal Masters that year, then went on to win the US Open. Unfortunately, the injury he sustained after that has really affected his entire career, and he hasn't been as good since. Hence the lack of titles.

It has been a lot more than injuries that has caused the lack of titles for Del Potro since 2009.

Also, I don't see why he was any better in 2009 than 2013. If he had closed the deal on Nadal in the second set of the IW final, wouldn't you be saying that this was a "peak moment" in his career, by virtue of him simply winning the event?

Likewise for the semifinal against Djokovic at Wimbledon or the final against Djokovic in Shanghai.

His level in 2013 was usually very high. But Delpo's problems in closing the deal have to do far more with his sluggish and mopey on-court attitude than a wrist injury, as bothersome as it certainly was at times for him.

I agree that Del Potro looked like he was getting back on-form in 2013, and things might have gone differently for him had he closed the deal on those matches you cite.  I have a slight difference of opinion with you as to why.  I'm not the only one here who thinks that Juan Martín's lack of confidence in his wrist has taken some of the sting off of his forehand.  And I'm not sure if "sluggish and mopey on-court attitude" is technically a tennis problem.  His demeanor is what it is.  (He's always looked like a gigantic sloth to me, by which I mean the animal.)  I'd go back to belief and confidence, and I do think the source is the injury history.  

Each of the Big 4, in their own way, is very assertive and fast-paced in how they approach matches. They walk fast between points. They are decisive. They look like they are after something. They look like they are on a business mission with serious profits available to them if they are sharp and complete the task at hand.

Del Potro - for all his talent - does not share this psychology. He wants to win, of course. And he is persistent. But his mopey, sluggish, and yes, slothful, attitude inevitably results in sloppiness in his play against average opponents and puts him at a serious disadvantage against the Top 4. The Wimbledon semifinal was case and point. Delpo was making some terrific shots but he acted like he was facing an invincible Hercules, and fittingly, he succumbed to the invincible Hercules his attitude turned Djokovic into.

Just before someone else jumps in with an enormous guffaw, let me say that there are plenty who would argue about Nadal and Djokovic being "fast-paced." Assertive, for sure, I'll give you that caveat. TBH, I'm not sure what goes on with Del Potro. I'm not sure if it's fitness, wrist, attitude, confidence, combination of all….

Maybe he won the USOpen before he knew enough to be intimidated. And here I agree with you: since then, he has seemed to lack the killer- or closer's-instinct.

This was a predictable retort. By moving fast between points, I don't mean the literal number of seconds taken. I mean more so the pace of walking and the general comportment that they exhibit.

The reason that Djokovic and especially Nadal take a while between points is that they are OCD, as well as relatively diva-ish. They are also perfectionists, especially Nadal. Nadal is also a stickler for routine.

This is of a totally different character than Delpo being, yes, a sloth. He often goes long stretches of days without shaving and looks like he is ready for an afternoon nap after playing video games for 4 hours. He makes a face as if to say "ohhhh, do I really have to do this???? It is going to take soooo long and I don't feel like it, but I guess I'll do it".

 

[Moxie]

Each of the Big 4, in their own way, is very assertive and fast-paced in how they approach matches. They walk fast between points. They are decisive. They look like they are after something. They look like they are on a business mission with serious profits available to them if they are sharp and complete the task at hand.

Del Potro - for all his talent - does not share this psychology. He wants to win, of course. And he is persistent. But his mopey, sluggish, and yes, slothful, attitude inevitably results in sloppiness in his play against average opponents and puts him at a serious disadvantage against the Top 4. The Wimbledon semifinal was case and point. Delpo was making some terrific shots but he acted like he was facing an invincible Hercules, and fittingly, he succumbed to the invincible Hercules his attitude turned Djokovic into.

Just before someone else jumps in with an enormous guffaw, let me say that there are plenty who would argue about Nadal and Djokovic being "fast-paced." Assertive, for sure, I'll give you that caveat. TBH, I'm not sure what goes on with Del Potro. I'm not sure if it's fitness, wrist, attitude, confidence, combination of all….

Maybe he won the USOpen before he knew enough to be intimidated. And here I agree with you: since then, he has seemed to lack the killer- or closer's-instinct.

This was a predictable retort. By moving fast between points, I don't mean the literal number of seconds taken. I mean more so the pace of walking and the general comportment that they exhibit.

The reason that Djokovic and especially Nadal take a while between points is that they are OCD, as well as relatively diva-ish. They are also perfectionists, especially Nadal. Nadal is also a stickler for routine.

This is of a totally different character than Delpo being, yes, a sloth. He often goes long stretches of days without shaving and looks like he is ready for an afternoon nap after playing video games for 4 hours. He makes a face as if to say "ohhhh, do I really have to do this???? It is going to take soooo long and I don't feel like it, but I guess I'll do it".

It was a "predictable retort," in your opinion, because you made a slightly outrageous comment. And I'm not sure you're qualified to diagnose Djokovic or Nadal as OCD. (Both have described their routines as ways of focusing on what they have to do.) Surely, Nadal and Novak "swagger" better, but they don't play faster. In any case, I think you're reading too much into Del Potro's on-court demeanor. However he appears doesn't necessarily describe what he feels about his ambitions. Just because you think he should shave doesn't mean he doesn't care enough. While I think there are mysteries as to why Juan Martin hasn't picked back up from where he left off in 2009, I do think your explanation is too simplistic.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It is too much to say various stuff about JMDP based on the way he looks on the court
and so on. Different people have different mannerisms and so I don't think his "sloth"
appearance is cutting into his game. It appears to some of us that way. But, does not
have to be true.

 

[DarthFed]

I think DP is a special case where the big injury (wrist) has mostly derailed his career. You don't hear much about it but it doesn't mean that it is 100% or that he can do what he did before the wrist injury. As Murat often mentions you might go a year before you see him hit a DTL backhand. And that puts him in a big disadvantage vs. the elite players, all of which have way better backhands (or forehand in Rafa's case as the cross court backhands go there) and they all move much better and can outlast him over 5 sets if need be.

With Stan it remains to be seen, he obviously made a lot of progress last year and it continued at the AO. He could very well follow it up and win a couple masters this year. With DP I have no doubt he'd have already won a few and had a much different career if he didn't get stopped by the wrist. I still think he will win a MS or 2 before the end of his career, he is still good enough to do it.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Now, we can add Marin Cilic to the list as well.

JMDP at least won a ATP 500 event (Washington DC) before winning USO.

Both Stan Wawrinka and Marin Cilic have not even won an ATP 500 title, let alone
a Masters title,, before winning their first grand slam title.

This is indeed very strange. One can certainly argue that in Masters events the
draw is brutal right from the beginning as only top players are in it and you cannot
play up to form. However, these guys have not even won an ATP 500 event. In
an ATP 500 event, not all top players participate. Also, several of these ATP 500
events are scheduled in pairs (that is two of them in the same week), leading to
the splitting of the field.

Can someone come up with an explanation for this or it is just a random occurrence?

 

[Federberg]

In some ways navigating a slam can be easier than a Masters series. I'm sure there are any number of slams where the winner doesn't face anyone ranked in the top 10. But that's impossible in a Masters series. It's just the way it is

 

[DarthFed]

Stan not winning an ATP 500 before AO is shocking. Stan didn't totally come out of nowhere at AO this year. At the end of last year he was really looking like the 4th or 5th best player in the world (ahead of Federer though most figured Roger would turn it around this year).

Cilic is a different story. He really came out of nowhere to win this. Even the lead up events he had a tough QF loss to Fed in Toronto and then got blown away the last 2 sets vs. Stan in 4th round of Cincy. Nothing gave any hint he had the slightest prayer of winning the USO.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

In some ways navigating a slam can be easier than a Masters series. I'm sure there are any number of slams where the winner doesn't face anyone ranked in the top 10. But that's impossible in a Masters series. It's just the way it is

That I agree, but how do you explain the fact that neither Stan nor Marin had even won
an ATP 500 before winning their first slam. That sounds really weird.

 

[herios]

Now, we can add Marin Cilic to the list as well.

And can you wipe Wawrinka of the list please?

If you brought this thread up, at least we should do an accurate job, because between February and now, Stan won his maiden master in MC.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Now, we can add Marin Cilic to the list as well.

And can you wipe Wawrinka of the list please?

If you brought this thread up, at least we should do an accurate job, because between February and now, Stan won his maiden master in MC.

Yes, he did win MC. But, the issue here is not about Stan's resume, but deals with
the question of how come a player who has not even won a Masters (for which we know
the reasons) or ATP 500 (i don't have a legitimate explanation here) is able to win
a GS.

Stan's name will be there for ever as the fact that he won a GS before winning
a Masters or ATP 500 cannot be changed by whatever else he does the rest of his
life.

 

[herios]

Now, we can add Marin Cilic to the list as well.

And can you wipe Wawrinka of the list please?

If you brought this thread up, at least we should do an accurate job, because between February and now, Stan won his maiden master in MC.

Yes, he did win MC. But, the issue here is not about Stan's resume, but deals with
the question of how come a player who has not even won a Masters (for which we know
the reasons) or ATP 500 (i don't have a legitimate explanation here) is able to win
a GS.

Stan's name will be there for ever as the fact that he won a GS before winning
a Masters or ATP 500 cannot be changed by whatever else he does the rest of his
life.

Frankly put, I do not see it as an issue. it is not normal, but not an issue.
It is all about timing, when everything comes together for a player.
Both Stan and Cilic had a crucial factor leading into their performance, the work put into their improvement under the tutelage of a new coach and a new approach.
In both cases it was a gradual process, for Stan more obvious, by his results (first USO SF, first WTF).
For Cilic, it was a less visible process, more like statements by him and Goran, that he felt like Goran made an impact on his game, but it did not materialize until the USO.
Most likely it was more executing a plan with the confidence that you are able to do it.
But Marin had his deepest run in Wimbledon, taking out Berdych and stretching Nole to 5 sets in the QF. probably people did not pay too much attention to that match, as they should've.
I think when all said and done, because he is still young, he will catch up and win more of those missing right now in his resume (500 and masters). I have more confidence in him and his game than Wawrinka.